Gujarat High Court
Yogendra Kasturbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 31 March, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)3GLR1868
Author: H.L. Gokhale
Bench: H.L. Gokhale
JUDGMENT H.L. Gokhale, J.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-3-1994 of the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 194 of 1992. The appellant was the sole accused in that case and was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the conviction under Section 302 of l.P.C. He has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- and to suffer one month R.I. in default thereof on account of conviction under Section 452 of I.P.C. The substantive sentence were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The incident leading to this conviction took place of 28-2-1992. The appellant was a student in the 2nd year of Master of Social Welfare (MSW) Course conducted by the Mahadevbhai Desai College of Social Service, affiliated to Gujarat Vidyapeeth. By a charge framed on 3rd August 1992, the appellant was charged to have killed one Ms. Kokilaben Navnitlal Jariwala during the period between 9-45 p.m. on 28-2-1992 and 7-30 a.m. on 29-2-1992. This Kokilaben was staying in a flat on 7th floor in Kamaldeep Apartments. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. She was a lady of about 55 years, unmarried, staying alone and was a professor in the said college, teaching Sociology. On the aforesaid date and time and at the residence of Kokilaben, the appellant was charged to have gagged her by her own saree and to have killed her by hitting her by an iron rod punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also charged for criminal trespass under Section 452 of the I.P.C. and for holding a dangerous weapon under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. His defence in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. PC. is of total denial. At the end of the trial, the charge under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act could not be sustained for want of notification issued by Police Commissioner in that behalf. The accused-appellant was, however, held guilty of the aforesaid two charges punishable under Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as stated above.
3. The prosecution case as disclosed through the deposition of PW No. 4, Bipinchandra Chimanlal Shah, is as follows: Bipinchandra is married to Niranjanaben, sister of the deceased - Kokilaben. Bipinchandra had visited the residence of the deceased on 28-2-1992 along with his wife Niranjanaben at about 9-15 p.m. and had stayed there for about half-an-hour. During the discussion with the deceased, she disclosed to Bipinchandra that an incident of theft of her money had taken place in the Vidyapeeth and that she had talked about the same with the Principal of her college. She had informed the Principal that the accused had committed the theft. The next day morning at about 7-30 to 8-00 a.m. Niranjanaben received a phone call from a neighbour of the deceased, one Nimeshbhai. Nimeshbhai informed her that on pressing the door-bell at the residence of the Kokilaben, the door was not being opened. Hence, PW 4 along with his wife rushed to the residence of the deceased. They could not get the door opened and hence they phoned the police. The policemen arrived and they called the fire-brigade to open the door. The men from the fire-brigade arrived at 8-30 a.m. and they broke the lock of the door and when they entered the flat they found the body of Kokilaben lying on the floor just near the door with her legs towards the door. There was a pool of blood near her head and the spectacles were lying away. It appeared as if somebody had hit on her forehead. There were blood-stains on the electric switch in that room and the light was put off. In the internal room the night lamp was on and the bed was seen tidy, covered with bed-sheet. Bipinchandra thereafter lodged the complaint which was produced on record as Exhibit 23. He also stated that the flat of the deceased was as per map which was produced at Exhibit 31.
4. The complaint was investigated by Dahyabhai Jojabhai Patel (PW No. 14) the then Police Inspector at Navrangpura Police Station. He has deposed that at about 8-00 a.m. in the morning of 29-2-1992 at his residence he received a phone call from head constable Narsing at the police station that one Kokilaben staying on 7th floor of Kamaldeep Flats was found lying dead in her house near the main door and that P.S.I. Gohil had gone over there. On receiving the message. P.I. Patel rushed to the place of offence. On going there he got the inquest panchnama done at about 9 a.m. The same is produced on record as EXH 6. Thereafter he recorded the FIR. lodged by Bipinchandra (PW No. 4) which charged the appellant-accused herein for the said offence. Since the complaint implicated the appellant-accused, this officer directed P.S.I. Haresh Patel (PW No. 12) to search for the accused. Thereafter he got the scene of offence panchnama done at about 10-45 a.m. which is exhibited as Exh. 27. It records amongst other that the cupboards in the house were in a closed condition and nothing was noticeable as stolen. The officer recorded the necessary statements thereafter and returned to Navrangpura Police Station at about 3-30 p.m.
5. P.S.I. Haresh Patel (PW No. 12) has deposed that on being directed by P.I. Dahyabhai Patel (PW No. 14) he went to Gujarat Vidyapeeth to search for the accused where he found him and brought him to the police station. He happened to meet a room-mate of the accused one Sureshbhai Makwana over there and he brought him also to the police station. After bringing the accused to the police station he did the panchnama of the physical condition of the accused and placed him under arrest at about 1 p.m. He recorded the statement of Sureshbhai Makwana (PW No. 7). Thereafter on the accused offering to disclose the clothes and shoes worn by him at the time of the incident he called two panchas and recorded the first part of the panchnama. Thereafter he along with the panchas and accused visited room No. 48 of the hostel in which the accused-appellant was residing. After going there the accused took out a trouser and a shirt from a wooden cupboard and pair of shoes lying over there. All the three articles had blood-stains over them. He thereafter returned to the police station and completed the second part of the panchnama by about 3-45 p.m. and the same is brought on record as Exh. 35.
6. The investigating officer, Dahyabhai Patel (PW 14) has thereafter deposed that when he made the further inquiry with the accused, he voluntarily offered to disclose the iron bar which he had used in the commission of the offence. The officer, therefore, called two panchas and completed the first part of the panchnama in the police station. Thereafter he took the accused to the concerned flat. The accused took the officer and the panchas to the bathroom situated in the rear side of the flat and opened the window of the bathroom and from the rear side of the same took out an iron bar of slightly over 2 ft. which was also blood-stained. Some blood spots were noted in the bathroom also. The second part of the panchnama was completed thereafter by about 5-30 p.m. and the same is brought on record as Exh. 19. The sample of blood and blood-stains was collected from the electric switch, from the floor where the body was lying and the bathroom. The panchnama to that effect (Exh. 8) was completed by 6-05 p.m. These blood samples, the articles of the deceased such as her saree and blouse which were blood-stained and the clothes and shoes of the accused as well as the iron-bar were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) for examination. The F.S.L. report which is brought on the record as Exh. 14 confirms that the blood found on the clothes of the deceased and on the clothes of the accused as well as the blood collected at the scene of offence and on the iron rod was human blood belonging to Group B.
7. The post-mortem was performed by Dr. Ravindra Shrikrishna Bhise (PW No. 1 1). The post-mortem report is at Exh. 38. Dr. Bhise while recording the description of the corpse has recorded at item No. 13 of the post-mortem report that the face of the deceased was blood-stained. Cloth gag comprising from the saree was seen tightly tucked in oral cavity pushing the tongue behind. The stomach of the deceased was containing semi-digested food. At item No. 8 of the said report the doctor has recorded that the saree was stained with blood and the petticoat and nicker are stained with faecal matter. At item No. 20 he has recorded 22 external injuries. They are principally on the head and then in the neck region. The main external injuries noted on the head are as follows :
(i) Lacerated wound on right forehead almost parallel to right eye brow horizontal (6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep).
(ii) Contused lacerated wound on the right forehead vertical (3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep).
(iii) Contused lacerated wound 1 cm above and lateral to injury No. 2 (1 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep).
(iv) Contused lacerated wound in right temple region in front of the right ear (3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep).
(v) Contused lacerated wound of right parietal region (5 cm x 2 cm bone deep).
(vi) Contused lacerated wound on left parietal region (4 cm x 1 cm x horizontal bone deep).
(vii) Contused lacerated wound on right parietal region 5 cm away from medicen plane (5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep).
The main injuries on the neck are injuries Nos. 15 and 16 which are as under :
(xv) Abrasions with contusions in upper part of the neck extending more on left from median plane in an area of 7 cm x 4.5 cm vertically lying, red in colour.
(xvi) Contusion on the left side of neck, just lateral to medial plane just below the lower border of mandeble in median plane, 3 cm x 2 cm, red in colour.
8. Corresponding to these external injuries, the principal internal injuries noted are :
(i) Linear fracture of skull in left front parietal region extending from left frontal region going backwards upto a length of 12.5 cm. It also extends into the base of the skull in outer cranial fossa for a length of 9.2 cm.
Brain shows subolenal haemohrrage almost all over both lobes.
(ii) Neck muscles were contused and echymosed underneath almost all over the region below laryngeal and the lungs were found congested.
The doctor has given his opinion that 'the cause of the death was the shock as a result of head injuries sustained. The post-mortem findings are also suggestive of smothering and attempted strangulation.'
9. The aforesaid material leaves no doubt that the death of Kokilaben is a homicidal death. The external door of her flat had a Godrej lock and a door lens. Bipinchandra (PW No. 4) has deposed that he along with his wife spent half-an-hour after about 9-15 p.m. with the deceased on the fateful night of 28-2-1992. The post-mortem note shows that the deceased had semi-digested food in her stomach. Her bed was tidy, covered with bedsheet and the night lamp in the bed-room was burning though the one in the sitting room was put off with bloodstains visiable on the switch. These circumstances indicate that after Bipinchandra and his wife left the residence of Kokilaben and after she had some food and before her going to bed, somebody known to her had called on her. On noticing a known person, the unsuspecting lady must have admitted him into her house whereafter immediately the attempt to strangulate her has taken place. In addition to that, she was hit on her head by a hard and blunt instrument causing serious head injuries as a result of which her body was found lying immediately near the door with her spectacles lying on the floor. The assailant has moved inside the house and gone into the bathroom, whereafter he has switched off the light in the front room and gone out closing the door.
10. The next question is whether the accused is responsible for this homicidal death? Bipinchandra (PW No. 4) has deposed that on the night of 28-2-1992 when he visited the residence of Kokilaben she had informed him that prior to the date of the incident money was being stolen from her purse for about a week or so. In his cross-examination he has stated as per information given by Kokilaben that when she went to take her lectures she used to keep her purse in the room allotted to her. Those students who are receiving guidance from her used to visit her room. She had doubts on the accused for the said theft and on 28-2-1992 she had talked to the Principal of her college, Shri Kannaiyalal Naik (PW No. 6), about this incident of theft. She had also stated to Bipinchandra that she was unhappy and disturbed on account of this theft being committed by the accused. Shri Naik (PW No. 6) has deposed that earlier also in the month of February 1991 a theft had taken place in a hostel room. One Pareshbhai and the accused were staying in that room. The accused had confessed that he had committed that theft. The brother of the accused and some others had submitted to the Principal that they will see to it that Paresh gets back his money and no action be taken against the appellant-accused so that he does not lose his academic year. Accordingly, no action was taken at that time. On 28-2-1992 at bout 12 noon Kokilaben, the deceased visited him along with one professor Mohiyuddin Bombaywala. The deceased told PW 6 that for the last about 3-4 days some amount or the other was being stolen from her purse. Kokilaben also informed PW No. 6 that at the time of prayer she had asked two students to keep a watch on her room and later on they told her that accused had entered her room during the prayer time.
11. PW No. 6 thereafter deposed that he called for the accused subsequently but was informed that the room of the accused was locked. On PW No. 6 persisting, at about 5-45 p.m. one lshwarbhai (PW No. 10) who is the rector of the hostel, brought the accused to the Principal. PW No. 6 informed the accused about the allegations made against him whereafter the accused did not react immediately. On PW No. 6 informing the accused that he will have to call the father of the accused-appellant, he stated that his father may not be called and that he will return the amount.
12. Another co-teacher of the deceased, one Rajcndra Pramodray Jani (PW No. 5) has also deposed that the deceased had informed him on 28-2-1992 after the prayer was over (and when they met in the staff room) that the accused had stolen Rs. 50/ - from her purse and that for the last 4-5 days similar amount was being stolen. PW No. 5 has stated that the deceased had specifically told him that she suspected the accused.
13. Thus, the ease of the prosecution is that it is because of having been caught after committing the theft that the accused had committed the crime. The evidence of Principal Naik (PW No. 6) is quite relevant from the point of view of motive. Principal - Naik has deposed that earlier also the accused was involved in similar theft in the month of February 1991 and the accused had confessed and the matter was patched up so that his career is not affected. This time also the very Principal has deposed that only after he threatened the accused that his father will have to be called that the accused confessed having committed the theft. In the cross-examination Principal-Naik has also accepted that he had told the accused he may have to discontinue his studies as well. There is no reason to disbelieve either the Principal or the fellow-teacher Prof. Jani or the brother-in-law of the deceased when all of them have deposed to the same effect.
14. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant-accused, submitted that the allegation of theft was too weak a motive for him to commit such a serious crime. In this behalf what is to be noted is that there was already one past incident of theft of money of another student wherein the accused was charged for theft. The accused was let off at that time. This was the second occasion when he was caught for similar incident wherein the complaint was lodged to the Principal by a professor. The Principal of the college threatened the accused that he will have to call his parents and that he will be removed from the institution and thereafter only he had confessed the crime. This clearly indicates that the accused was under suspicion on account of the allegation of theft levelled by the deceased. It is the case of prosecution that being very much agitated by this allegation, the accused has taken the extreme step.
15. As far as the participation of the accused in the crime is concerned, the entire evidence is circumstantial. One Sureshbhai Makwana (PW No. 7) was staying in the hostel room No. 48 along with the accused and with brother of the accused one Chandrakant. This PW No. 7 has deposed that on 28-2-1992 this Chandrakant had gone to Jaipur in the morning. The accused and PW No. 7 watched Chitrahar programme on Television till about 8-30 p.m. and then PW No. 7 went to bed in his room without closing the stopper. The accused was not there in that room at that time and PW No. 7 saw him only on the next day in the morning at about 6-00 a.m. when the accused woke him up. The watchman of the Kamaldeep Apartments, Naranbhai Rathod, (PW No. 2) has deposed that between 10 p.m. to 10-30 p.m. on 28-2-1992 he had seen the accused going out of the society while he was standing near the lift. He has described the accused as seen by him at that time as a tall person with beard. PW No. 5, Prof. Rajendra Jani, has also stated that the accused was sporting beard at that time. This watchman has described the accused as wearing a trouser of a colour similar to blue and a zabba of khadi having a colour similar to red. The shirt seized from the cupboard of the accused is a khadi shirt with full sleeves though it is not a red colour zabba. The irouser of the accused seized from the cupboard is of black colour. It is possible that the watchman might have confused between the colours black and blue. As far as the colour of the shirt is concerned he has stated that in the tubelight he had felt the colour to be similar to red. Much emphasis is led on the contradictions in his statement and that the Test identification parade was not held. Here what is to be noted is that the watchman has described the accused by and large correctly as a tall person with beard wearing a dark trouser and a long upper garment of khadi. If at all there is any discrepancy, it is with respect to colour of the shirt which he described as red coloured zabba. In this behalf we have to bear in mind that in appreciating the evidence of witnesses the Court has to separate the grain from the chaff as per the observations of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Shankar . In para 32 thereof the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cautions as follows :
Time and again, this Court has pointed out that in this country it is rare to come across the testimony of a witness which does not have a fringe or an embroidery of untruth although his evidence may be true in the main. It is the function of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff and accept what appears to be true and reject the rest. It is only where the testimony of a witness is fainted to the core, the falsehood and the truth being inextricably interwined that the Court should discard his evidence in toto.
16. As far as not holding of identification parade is concerned, the investigating officer - Shri Dahyabhai Patel (PW No. 14) has candidly accepted that the watchman had seen the accused when he had brought him to the Kamladeep Apartments at about 4 p.m. Holding of an identification parade thereafter would have been of no consequence. What is of importance is that, as stated by the watchman (PW No. 2), when he saw the accused being brought to the Kamladeep Apartments it immediately struck him as having seen him on the previous night. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the watchman for want of T.I. parade.
16.1. Mr. Mehta, learned, Counsel for the appellant-accused, has severely criticised the discovery of the articles of the accused as also of the iron rod. Here, again what is to be noted is that on accused himself showing willingness to produce his clothes and shoes that the P.S.I. Haresh Patel (PW No. 12) took him to his room in the presence of two panchas. The discovery of the articles and the panchnama (Exh. 35) is completed between 1-15 p.m. and 3-45 p.m. The two panchas are Shaileshbhai Patel, Assistant Registrar of Gujarat Vidyapeeth, aged 67 years, and Jitendrabhai Parmar, aged 52 years, a clerk working in the same institution. Shaileshbhai has been examined as PW No. 9 to prove panchnama. He has stated that after going into the room the accused took out a shirt of long sleeves. It had stains of blood at the place of fourth button. He also took out a dark trouser which had bloodstains on the rear left side of it. Thereafter the accused took out the shoes which also had blood-stains. There is no reason to disbelieve the recovery done in the presence of these two persons one of whom is Assistant Registrar of Gujarat Vidyapeeth.
16.2. Similar is the case of the discovery of the iron rod. P.I. Dahyabhai Patel, investigating officer, has deposed that the accused showed the willingness and therefore, in the presence of wo panchas he was taken to Kamladeep Apartments. The officer has stated in his cross-examination that the accused took him and the panchas to the rear side of the bathroom and after opening the window he took out the blood-stained iron bar which was lying on the rear side of the window. The officer had deposed in his cross-examination that even if one were to look down from the window, then, also it was not possible to notice that an iron bar was lying there. The panchnama of recovery of rod (Exh. 19) was done in the presence of one Shanabha Zhala and the Kartarsingh Dilipsingh. This Shanabha Zhala has been examined as PW No. 3 and has proved the panchnama. As far as the discovery of the clothes, shoes and the rod is concerned, in our view, there is no breach of the provisions of the Evidence Act. Mr. Mchta has tried to contend that the discovery of the clothes, shoes as well as the iron rod cannot be used against the accused. In our view, Section 27 of the Evidence Act protects the discovery done with the help of the accused in such a situation. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Bahri v. Stale of Bihar in this behalf gives the clear guidelines. Para 71 of the said judgment reads as under :
71. The two essential requirements for the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are that (I) the person giving information must be an accused of any offence, and (2) he must also be in police custody. In the present case it cannot be disputed that although these essential requirements existed on the date when Gurbachan Singh led PW 59 and others to the hillock where according to him he had thrown the dead body of Urshia but instead of the dead body the articles by which her body was wrapped were found. The provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence because if such an information is further fortified and confirmed by the discovery of articles or the instrument of crime and which leads to the belief that the information about the confession made as to the articles of crime cannot be false. In the present case, as discussed above the confessional statement of the disclosure made by the appellant Gurbachan Singh is confirmed by the recovery of the incriminating articles as said above and, therefore, there is reason to believe that the disclosure statement was true and the evidence led in that behalf is also worthy of credence.
In view of the above discussion, the discovery of the clothes, shoes as also iron rod cannot be in any way be faulted with.
17. Mr. Mehta tried to contend that as far as the clothes are concerned, it cannot be said that they were of the accused. Now what is to be noted is that it is the accused who took out those clothes. The shirt had the name of the tailor on it showing that it was stitched by "Bharat Tailors, Manasa". This Manasa is the town from which the accused comes, as stated by Principal-Naik (PW No. 6). Of course, the brother of the accused was also staying in the same room but, he had gone to Jaipur right from the morning of 28-2-1992. Mr. Mehta tried to fault the recovery of the rod by contending that a Jamadar went into the bathroom along with the accused at the time of panchnama. The bathroom is of the size of 3.5 ft x 2.5 ft. The panch witness Shanabha (PW No. 3) has stated that he was standing at the entrance of the bathroom along with P.I. Dahyabhai Patel (PW No. 14). When this pancha has stated that the accused took out the rod from the rear side after opening the window in his presence, there is no reason to doubt his statement. 1 he discovery panchnama (Exh. 19) records that the rod was taken out from the external line of the outer wall after opening the window of the bathroom. P.I. Dahyabhai Patel has in terms stated that the rod was not in such a place where it could be seen easily. Besides, the testimony of one Mansing Dodia (PW No. 1), another co-student, is also very relevant. On being shown the iron rod, he has deposed that it was similar to the one which was used in the hostel for ringing the bell. He has stated that accused used to ring the bell at the time of prayers. This was as per the allotment of work. When the allotted student was not available, others also used to ring bell and P.W. No. 1 had also rung the bell occasionally. He has slated that at the time when his statement was taken by the police the rod for ringing the bell was not seen at its proper place and was not being found.
18. All this circumstantial material leads to only one conclusion that the accused very much felt disturbed by the allegation of theft levelled by the deceased and by using the iron rod and by visiting the place of the deceased on the fateful night and time he has caused her death. Mr. Mehta contended that the finger prints near the switch ought to have been taken to clinch the issue. The investigating officer has, however, explained that the finger prints were not accessible for being collected from that spot. Mr. Mehta has tried to contend that there is a possibility of the accused being innocent and he deserves to be given the benefit of doubt. It is not possible to accept this submission. The observations of the Supreme Court in para 6 of H.P. Administration v. Om Prakash in this behalf are very much apt and they are as follows :
While it is not the function of this Court to determine who other than the person who has been charged with the murder had committed it, the line which the defence adopted was to establish that the witnesses referred to above had an interest in implicating the accused or at any rate to create uncertainty and doubt sufficient to give the benefit to the accused. It is not beyond the ken of experienced able and astute lawyers to raise doubts and uncertainties in respect of the prosecution evidence either during trial by cross-examination or by the marshalling of that evidence in the manner in which the emphasis is placed thereon. But what has to be borne in mind is that the penumbra of uncertainty in the evidence before a Court is generally due to the nature and quality of that evidence. It may be the witnesses are lying or where they are honest and truthful, they are not certain. It is, therefore, difficult to expect a scientific or mathematical exactitude while dealing with such evidence or arriving at a true conclusion. Because of these difficulties corroboration is sought wherever possible and the maxim that the accused should be given the benefit of doubt becomes pivotal in the prosecution of offenders which in other words means that the prosecution must prove its case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt by a sufficiency of credible evidence. The benefit of doubt to which the accused is entitled is reasonable doubt - the doubt which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy-though unwittingly it may be -or is afraid of the logical consequences, if that benefit was not given or as one great Judge said it is "not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has not the moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a vain and idle scepticism." It does not mean that the evidence must be so strong as to exclude even a remote possibility that the accused could not have committed the offence. If that were so the law would fail to protect society as in no case can such a possibility be excluded. It will give room for fanciful conjectures or untenable doubts and will result in deflecting the course of justice if not thwarting it altogether. It is for this reason the phrase has been criticised. Lord Goddard. C'. J. in Rex. v. Kritz 1950(1) KB 82 at p. 90 said that when in explaining to the Juries what the prosecution has to establish a Judge begins to use the words "reasonable doubt" and to try to explain what is a reasonable doubt and what is not he is much more likely to confuse the Jury than if he tells them in plain language. "It is the duty of the prosecution to satisfy you of the prisoner's guilt". What in effect this approach amounts to is that the greatest possible care should be taken by the Court in convicting an accused who is presumed to be innocent till the contrary is clearly established which burden is always in the accusatory system, on the prosecution. The mere fact that there is only a remote possibility in favour of the accused is itself sufficient to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. This then is the approach.
19. The last point to be considered is whether the death caused in this particular fashion amounts to murder or whether it can be considered to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The evidence on record shows that on the day of the incident in the evening at about 5-45 p.m. the accused was called by the Principal where the allegation of theft was levelled against him. The accused confessed the guilt only when he was told that otherwise his father would be informed and he may be removed from the institution and that disturbed him leading to the crime committed after 9-45 p.m. on the same night. The offence is not committed on the spur of the moment due to any provocation. Besides, the injuries found on the body of the deceased are quite serious and which make the intention of the assailant to murder very explicit. The attempt made was to strangulate and then to kill the Professor by hitting on her head. There are multiple injuries in this behalf. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that this is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
20. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge minutely and we find no infirmity. The accused is held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and he will have to undergo the imprisonment for life for the same. His conviction under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code is also confirmed though the said sentence is to run concurrently. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed and the sentence is confirmed.